Addendum to the Aug. 14th City Council agenda:
Executive Session regarding pending Freedom of Information case of J. Jay Meisinger vs. City Council, City of Bristol, Docket #FIC 2007-376.
Let me be the first to protest the very idea of meeting behind closed doors to discuss an open government issue. The entire notion is preposterous.
Before I go on, let me explain that while journalists rarely offer their opinions on issues they write about -- except some of those television types -- there is one generally agreed on exception to the norm: matters related to open government. Former Press Publisher Bart Barnes, who championed the Freedom of Information Act in Connecticut, always said that the press has to be on the front lines on the issue because we're the ones who see the problems firsthand. We have to be the advocate for the public's right to know.
As for this specific case, what on earth is there to talk about in secret? How to beat the rap? At least two of the city councilors named in the FOI complaint -- Ellen Zoppo and Craig Minor -- have said they did nothing wrong. Perhaps that's true. But if they did nothing wrong, they certainly have nothing to discuss behind closed doors.
Innocent people shout their innocence from the hilltops. They don't whisper about it in secret sessions.
The only proper defense to a claim that officials are violating open government laws is to do everything openly. If there are matters to discuss about the claim, and there surely are, do it in public. Let the public know what's going on in every detail. Secrecy, after all, breeds suspicion.
I told the city attorney, Ed Krawiecki, Jr, that I do not view FOI cases in the same light as other litigation (some legal cases can, and should, be discussed behind closed doors) because there are two public entities involved and an intrinsic public interest in ensuring openness in resolving the claim.
I am not taking sides between those who say the "scripted" meetings broke the law and those who say they were perfectly legal. That's for the FOI Commission to decide.
But I'm sure I'm not alone in finding it astonishing that city leaders would give even passing thought to talking about the case in secret. The public needs to know what they're hearing, what they're saying and what they're doing on this case. Let the light shine in.
*******
Copyright 2007. All rights reserved.
Contact Steve Collins at scollins@bristolpress.com
16 comments:
DESPARATE PEOPLE DO DESPARATE THINGS.
Art Ward is DESPARATE to become mayor.
He can't get in on his own abilities nor his many years of ineffective presense on the council.
This election year is turning out to be a terrible black eye on the history of Bristol.
Art Ward needs to get out of the race once and for ALL!
We have the opportunity to revitalize Bristol. Let's move past Art and FORWARD.
Steve, who is responsible for calling this executive session? Isn't it usually the mayor who makes the agenda?
Yes, it's usually the mayor. But it probably priginated in the city attorney's office. I'll have to check on that.
Remember we live in a democracy not a dictatorship in the United States, which (believe it or not) includes Bristol, CT.
If I was Art I would have filed it myself.
I can see it now, Minor, McCauley, Lydem, Block they are all her picks and anything that comes out of their months, would be the words of Ms. Zoppo. They would have a free for all, because everything she would say would go. I no longer trust any of them.
I agree with Steve if there is nothing to hide why go into executive session, it is the public's right to know.
You all are upset because she got caught. STOP TRYING TO HIDE.
I'm disappointed in the executive session but I'm not surprised. This started with collecting the scripts so that there were no LEAKS and being DISCRETE so that Art didn't see the pre-arranged information.
Ellen is standing behind her script but has yet to address the reason she didn't want any leaks and requested that Mike be discrete with the information because he sits next to Art.
I'd like to have her reasons for that. Not having those answers makes me less likely to trust her.
Let me just clarify how this works. When the council gets to this point on the agenda, it can vote to go into executive session on the matter or it can decline. If it declines, it can ask to discuss the issue in public or it can just move on without talking about it. If the council goes into executive session on the subject, it can discuss it secretly. If any votes are taken, they would be done back in open session, usually with little debate or discussion.
Steve, I think I need to start emailing you in addition to posting here. I posted a comment on this last night but you didn't post it.
On Saturday morning I called the Assistant Corporation Counsel and told him that I wanted this discussion to be in open session on Tuesday, not executive session. We did nothing wrong, and we have nothing to hide. I see no reason why the Corporation Counsel's office can't brief us on the the "complaint" in open session and tell us what they intend to do to have it dismissed.
Thank you, Craig.
I've heard from others, by the way, who wondered where their comments went. It's pretty obvious that they sometimes vanish before I see them.
Craig,
Corporation Counsel doesn't have the power to "dismiss it". It is in the State's hands now. You can't do anything about it until they make a decision.
I find it interesting that Craig is defending Ellen and she isn't saying a word.
If there was no validity to the FOI complaint that was filed, why would the State schedule a hearing date and appoint and ombudsman?
They wouldn't unless they felt that there was something to investigate.
Maybe the City Council honestly doesn't think that they did anything wrong. If that's the case they need to be re-educated in what open government really is and what the laws allow for - and most important, what they don't allow for.
Sad part of this commentary is that it exists; if people, such as Craig, had done their job as they should have - this fiasco would not even exist - Shame on you!
When a charge is made, there is always a hearing. Don't read anything in to the state's actions so far.
Anonymous said...
When a charge is made, there is always a hearing. Don't read anything in to the state's actions so far. August 12, 2007 8:24 PM
That isn't true. I know someone who filed an FOI complaint and was told by the commission via a letter that there wasn't enough evidence proving a violation, therefore no further action would be taken.
If there is evidence, as Jay's complaint lists, then they will investigate.
I'll match my record on open government against anyone's. "Open government" means the people get to have a say in the final decision, and they have the right to see these decisions made in public in the full light of day. It does not mean that town officials have to go into these meetings completely unprepared.
Craig,
Ok - I'll go with you on that one, but if you will "match your open govenment record with anyone" then why did you participate in a meeting preparation that required the use of discretion to eliminate one of the council members AND the collection of the "meeting preparation outline" so that there weren't any LEAKS?
The words "use with discretion" and "no leaks" are the words that tell us (the voting population) that it was NOT simply "meeting preparation".
Yet NONE OF YOU THAT PARTICIPATED have answer the question: Why was it necessary to be discrete, to eliminate Art Ward and to prevent leaks from taking place at the end of the meeting?
If there was nothing wrong with what you were doing, then you could have shared it with Art and he could have decided if he wanted to "follow the outline as written" or not.
Before Craig answers your question he needs to run it by Ellen first!
He cannot speak for himself any longer, I don't trust the 3 trio!
Post a Comment